Lion of the Blogosphere

Yes, it’s constitutional to ban Muslim non-citizens from entering the country

As explained in this article going back to 2001:

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. “In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. “One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.”

There is also the more recent case of Bluman v. FEC (2011), the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that Congress can forbid foreigners from contributing to political campaigns; foreigners don’t have the same First Amendment rights as American citizens.

Of course, a Supreme Court packed with liberals can do whatever it wants, but there is ample precedent for it being constitutional to ban Muslims from entering the country. Based on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, it would also be legal to expel resident non-citizen Muslims.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 8, 2015 at 11:42 pm

Posted in Immigration, Law

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. An excellent comment from another site about who Trump’s VP pick will be:

    “Trump will choose the most capable second he knows.

    It won’t be an obvious choice, until he makes it.

    When he makes it, the left will scream.

    It will be someone who no one other than Trump could get away with choosing as a second.

    And Trump will make it work out in the most marvellous manner, because that is what he does.”

    http://blog.jim.com/party-politics/trump-has-a-good-chance/#comment-1177649

    Andrew E.

    December 9, 2015 at 12:28 am

    • I wouldn’t be surprised if his VP choice is a woman. She would have to be hot-looking, for a middle-aged broad. Trump doesn’t like ugly people around him.

      gothamette

      December 9, 2015 at 3:31 pm

  2. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

    (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of
    aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of
    the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he
    shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of
    aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens
    any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    destructure

    December 9, 2015 at 3:19 am

  3. United States Code, Title 8, Section 1182(f): “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”

    Also, this lunatic fringe-right outlet agrees: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    nathanfwyatt

    December 9, 2015 at 6:58 am

  4. Saint Jimmy Carter barred Iranians from entering the United States. Worse yet, he had 15,000 Iranians who were already here rounded up and deported.

    Mark Caplan

    December 9, 2015 at 7:58 am

    • Really? I don’t remember that. Probably the media downplayed it because they loved the old chump. Like I bet if Obama suddenly said “we must build a wall to stop people from entering through Mexico” the media would immediately find justification for it and praise Obama for his “bravery.”

      Anyway, if Carter really did ship out 15,000 Iranians that’s the best thing he ever did.

      peterike

      December 9, 2015 at 10:03 am

      • The media didn’t love Carter. He was considered an “outsider” to them. However they weren’t just trying to make things up to smear him either, unlike today’s press

        Mike Street Station

        December 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm

  5. OT: Lion, this is a fun map for looking up the amount of gun violence in your neighborhood. Naturally in New York is maps directly to NAM neighbs.

    http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-deaths-interactive-map-2015/

    peterike

    December 9, 2015 at 10:05 am

  6. What Trump called for was “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” His proxies seem to be walking it back and clarifying it in various ways, but it’s clear that the proposal, as originally stated, which makes no mention of “non-citizens,” is unconstitutional.

    Trump originally said Muslim citizens were part of the problem, which they are. But it’s impossible to do anything about them at this point.

    Petey

    December 9, 2015 at 10:13 am

  7. Oh please. What’s constitutional doesn’t depend (anymore) on what’s in the Constitution or precedent or existing laws. It depends on what the Supreme Court would do, and what they would do is vote Trump’s proposal down, and dress it up to look like more than just their personal feelings on the issue.

    steve@steve.com

    December 9, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    • You may be right, but, as wrong as the elderly Alzheimerians of the Supreme Court have often been, they have never strayed too far from mainstream stupidity. For example, Roe v Wade could not have been imposed anytime before it was, and the senile 8 (Rehnquist being the only one who voted the right way for the right reasons) knew it. You see, Supreme Court justices know they are simply the token unattractive “old people on the jury” who will be tolerated only so long as they follow the general zeitgeist. They know if they really upset the American people they would be cashiered very quickly by unreviewable legislation limiting their powers. What are they going to do, walk over to Congress and the White House with posters and signs proclaiming their superior powers? It would never happen. So, as shamefully as Kennedy and Blackmun and their ilk (for the record, all of them since 1970 not named Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, or Alito) have acted, they have the excuse, lame though it might be, that they have only done so knowing they were not too far from what the average schlub in the average town thought. I would not worry about the likes of Roberts and Breyer stopping genuine political advances in situations where the representatives of the American people genuinely acted on behalf of the American people.

      a history lesson

      December 9, 2015 at 9:47 pm

  8. No one knows how aggressive the government will become down the road. The left’s multicultural narrative is coming under sharper attack than it ever has been. A chemical attack or dirty bomb would definitely strengthen the current right-wing backlash as would successive smaller attacks. A Trump presidency could very likely lead to something like the Palmer Raids. I even think that a repeat of the Zoot Suit Riots would be possible. Trump’s rise has demonstrated that there are millions of people who are tired of being lied to and played for fools.

    Lewis Medlock

    December 9, 2015 at 12:49 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: